Cover crops (CCs) can provide multiple soil, agricultural production, and environmental benefits. However, a better understanding of such potential ecosystem services is needed. We summarized the current state of knowledge of CC effects on soil C stocks, soil erosion, physical properties, soil water, nutrients, microbial properties, weed control, crop yields, expanded uses, and economics and highlighted research needs. Our review indicates that CCs are multifunctional. Cover crops increase soil organic C stocks (0.1–1 Mg ha−1 yr−1) with the magnitude depending on biomass amount, years in CCs, and initial soil C level. Runoff loss can decrease by up to 80% and sediment loss from 40 to 96% with CCs. Wind erosion potential also decreases with CCs, but studies are few. Cover crops alleviate soil compaction, improve soil structural and hydraulic properties, moderate soil temperature, improve microbial properties, recycle nutrients, and suppress weeds. Cover crops increase or have no effect on crop yields but reduce yields in water‐limited regions by reducing available water for the subsequent crops. The few available studies indicate that grazing and haying of CCs do not adversely affect soil and crop production, which suggests that CC biomass removal for livestock or biofuel production can be another benefit from CCs. Overall, CCs provide numerous ecosystem services (i.e., soil, crop–livestock systems, and environment), although the magnitude of benefits is highly site specific. More research data are needed on the (i) multi‐functionality of CCs for different climates and management scenarios and (ii) short‐ and long‐term economic return from CCs.

No abstract

Biochar is considered to be a potential soil amendment. However, its implications for soil physical and hydraulic properties have not been widely discussed. Changes in the soil physical environment influence the numerous services that soils provide. This paper (i) reviewed the impacts of biochar on soil compaction, mechanical, structural, hydraulic, and thermal properties; (ii) discussed factors affecting biochar performance; and (iii) identified research areas. Biochar generally reduces soil bulk density by 3 to 31%, increases porosity by 14 to 64%, and has limited or no effects on penetration resistance. Biochar increases wet aggregate stability by 3 to 226%, improves soil consistency, and has mixed effects on dry soil aggregate stability. It increases available water by 4 to 130%. Saturated hydraulic conductivity decreases in coarse-textured soils, and increases in fine-textured soils following biochar application. Studies on other properties are few but suggest that biochar reduces tensile strength and particle density, alters water infiltration, moderates soil thermal properties, and has minimal effect on soil water repellency. Sandy soils appear to respond more to biochar than clayey soils. Biochar effectiveness increases as the amount of biochar applied increases. A decrease in biochar particle size can increase water retention but may reduce saturated flow. Field-scale and long-term studies assessing all soil physical properties under different scenarios of biochar management are needed. Overall, biochar generally improves the soil physical environment, but long-term field studies are lacking to conclusively ascertain the extent of biochar effects.Abbreviations: COLE, coefficient of linear extensibility; WDPT, water drop penetration test

Šimanský V., Bajčan D. (2014): Stability of soil aggregates and their ability of carbon sequestration. Soil & Water Res., 9: 111-118. One of the most important binding agents for forming stable aggregates is a soil organic matter (SOM), which can be retained in various size fractions of aggregates. If aggregates are water-resistant, they retain more carbon. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the stability of aggregates and their ability of carbon se-questration in different soil types and soil management systems in Slovakian vineyards. The highest content of water-stable macro-aggregates (WSA ma) was determined in Cambisols, and the lowest in Fluvisols. The highest content of WSA ma (size fraction 0.5-3 mm) was determined in Chernozems, decreasing within the following sequence: Fluvisols > Leptosols > Cambisols > Luvisols. The soil type had a statistically significant influence on the redistribution of soil organic matter in size fractions of water-stable aggregates. The highest content of SOM in water-stable aggregates of the vineyards was determined in grassy strips in-between the vineyard rows in comparison to intensively cultivated rows of vineyard. The highest values of carbon sequestration capacity (CSC) in WSA ma were found in Cambisols > Leptosols and the lowest values of CSC were in Fluvisols. The micro-aggregates represented a significant carbon reservoir for the intensively cultivated soils (rows of vineyard). On the other hand, increasing of macro-aggregates (size fraction 0.5-3 mm) was characteristic for grassland soils (between the rows of vineyard).

No‐tillage (NT) farming is superior to intensive tillage for conserving soil and water, yet its potential for sequestering soil organic carbon (SOC) in all environments as well as its impacts on soil profile SOC distribution are not well understood. Thus, we assessed the impacts of long‐term NT‐based cropping systems on SOC sequestration for the whole soil profile (0–60‐cm soil depth) across 11 Major Land Resource Areas (MLRAs: 121, 122, and 125 in Kentucky; 99, 124, 139A in Ohio; and 139B, 139C, 140, 147, and 148 in Pennsylvania) in the eastern United States. Soil was sampled in paired NT and plow tillage (PT) based cropping systems and an adjacent woodlot (WL). No‐tillage farming impacts on SOC and N were soil specific. The SOC and N concentrations in NT soils were greater than those in PT soils in 5 out of 11 MLRAs (121, 122, 124, 139A, and 148), but only within the 0‐ to 10‐cm depth. Below 10 cm, NT soils had lower SOC than PT soils in MLRA 124. The total SOC with NT for the whole soil profile (0–60 cm) did not differ from that with PT (P > 0.10) in accord with several previous studies. In fact, total soil profile SOC in PT soils was 50% higher in MLRA 125, 21% in MLRA 99, and 41% in MLRA 124 compared with that in NT soils. Overall, this study shows that NT farming increases SOC concentrations in the upper layers of some soils, but it does not store SOC more than PT soils for the whole soil profile.

No abstract

Inclusion of cover crops (CCs) may be a potential strategy to boost no-till performance by improving soil physical properties. To assess this potential, we utilized a winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)-grain sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] rotation, four N rates, and a hairy vetch (HV; Vicia villosa Roth) CC after wheat during the first rotation cycles, which was replaced in subsequent cycles with sunn hemp (SH; CrotaUria júncea L.) and late-maturing soybean [LMS; Glycine max (L.) Merr.] CCs in no-till on a silt loam. At the end of 15 yr, we studied the cumulative impacts of CCs on soil physical properties and assessed relationships between soil properties and soil organic C (SOC) concentration. Across N rates, SH reduced near-surface bulk density [\^^ by 4% and increased cumulative infiltration by three times relative to no-CC plots. Without N application, SH and LMS reduced Proctor maximum pj^, a parameter of soil compactibility, by 5%, indicating that soils under CCs may be less susceptible to compaction. Cover crops also increased mean weight diameter of aggregates (MWDA) by 80% in the 0-to 7.5-cm depth. The SOC concentration was 30% greater for SH and 20% greater for LMS than for no-CC plots in the 0-to 7.5-cm depth. The CC-induced increase in SOC concentration was negatively correlated with Proctor maximum pi and positively with MWDA and cumulative infiltration. Overall, addition of CCs to no-till systems improved soil physical properties, and the CC-induced change in SOC concentration was correlated with soil physical properties.Abbreviations: CC, cover crop; HV, hairy vetch; MWDA, mean weight diameter of aggregates; SH, sunn hemp; LMS, late-maturing soybean; SOC, soil organic carbon.

No abstract